User talk:Sims2aholic8/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

DYK for Eurovision Song Contest 1999

On 7 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eurovision Song Contest 1999, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sweden won the Eurovision Song Contest 1999, twenty-five years after ABBA brought the country its first victory in the contest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1999. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eurovision Song Contest 1999), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT issue with recent GAN

Hi Sims2aholic8, a recent GAN of yours, Eurovision Song Contest 1999, was reviewed by a sockpuppet, likely using ChatGPT. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is not good at this job, and these reviews have been removed. Your nomination has been returned to the GAN queue at the original nomination date. No action is needed on your end, aside from the usual GAN process! Apologies for any inconvenience. Best, CMD (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1999

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1999

The article Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about this! I know you spent a lot of time expanding and preparing it for nomination. You do good work. Don't let this get you down. Grk1011 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Re. Soarele si Luna/luna

Hello, I saw that you reverted my move of Soarele si Luna to title case, and I was just inquiring as to why that is? In all official EBU information, as well as on Spotify, the song uses title case. Surely the best thing to do is respect the capitalisation that is the most common (and is the official name of the song)? -ASHEIOU (THEY/THEM • TALK) 16:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Asheiou: Capitalisation is typically regarded, particularly within song titles, as a stylisation. In order to ensure consistency across all articles on Wikipedia there are many naming conventions in place to detail how an article should be spelled, and in this case WP:NCCAPS will apply, as well as WP:NCSONG. While there may be exceptions for e.g. English- and French-language song titles to use capital letters for specific words, there are no such exceptions in place for Romanian-language titles, and in this case the default will be to revert to sentence case (i.e. capitalising only the first letter of the title). There are many other cases across Wikipedia where the "correct" title (or the one submitted by the artist/record label etc.) does not follow Wikipedia convention and is therefore changed, and this applies to all songs, not just Eurovision songs. While WikiProject Eurovision will have its own conventions, we are also bound by the Wikipedia-wide ones as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me like people tend to use the capitalisation of the title as it is officially (see Dragostea Din Tei and Dar, Unde Ești...). -ASHEIOU (THEY/THEM • TALK) 17:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Asheiou: However, going by Category:Romanian-language songs (which is clearly incomplete since there are no Romanian or Moldovan Eurovision entries in this list), apart from proper nouns (e.g. places, names) Dragostea Din Tei is the only song to follow this rule. All other articles in this category follow sentence case. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

On Totoro

Hello Sims2aholic8, this is just a query that as I've replied to the last concern a while ago, are there any other outstanding concerns I missed or any more suggestions you have about the article? Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@VickKiang: Yes, apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I was away for a good week and a half there so not able to contribute as normal, and now that I'm back I've been struck with Covid unfortunately. Not feeling too rough so I will definitely prioritise this and aim to close out the review within 24 hours. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

We've been interacting a lot on the Eurovision articles lately and are likely to be doing so for the foreseeable, so I just thought I'd say an informal 'hello' — it's better than being a totally anonymous presence on a talk page, surely? You've done a lot of great work on the Eurovision pages, and I appreciate how open you've been to me appearing from nowhere and suggesting some fairly big alterations A.D.Hope (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: Hey! Thanks for reaching out! 100% agree with you there. I always try to approach things on here from a sense of collaboration, and some of your ideas have been very helpful I find. It's nice to have a bit more of an outsider view on things as well to help bring a fresh perspective, so I really appreciate your insights! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm not an outsider to Eurovision in general but I am to 'Wikipedia Eurovision', so I'm looking forward to helping out and collaborating with you on the articles. I should confess that I'm more of a Sims 3 person, though... A.D.Hope (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope: It can be a bit of an intimidating place for sure at times, especially when so many people can become a little "set in their ways". I've been within Wikipedia for a long time now, principally within "Eurovision Wikipedia", and I'm generally excited when some new users come along and present new ideas! My Sims-aholism has definitely waned in recent years being totally honest, and in all honesty I did considered changing my username a while back, but I still have a very special place in my heart for The Sims 2 and the nostalgia of that has kept "Sims2aholic8" alive (for now hehe)! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Wikipedia in general can be quite intimidating (I still barely know what I'm doing where policy is involved). Assuming good faith seems to avoid the worst disagreements, though! "Eurovision Wikipedia" has been very chill so far, I have to say. As for your name, you should definitely keep it! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussions and editing progress

Hi, I want to talk to you further here from a comment I now posted on the project page which focused on the articles issues and designs. I hope you're willing to reply, kindly and patiently, here. Your last reply to me at the project page feels hurtful as gas lighting, as you say you just made "minimal changes" and that you "don't know what I mean" and your edit summaries for these changes – that you describe as "aid the discussion" and "per Rfc talk"; your add of broadcasters column without previous discussion and refusal to self-revert even this because this is "what you like to keep for more input" as you said; so it comes across as you don't show consideration for the existing-invested input which results in forcing your preferred version on the article that you admit as "test". This is when to begin with you put this table on your sandbox so everyone can see it there. It makes it look as even if you won't get clearer and more input you would just the same left this table in the 2023 article then quickly steam roll it across all yearly articles.

Can you understand how this all doesn't feel collaborative-honest on your part, gas lighting, can you understand why this also hurts me personally and exhausting me from feeling my time and energy are not well spent when I even try to help you, and demotivate me to discuss and to try contributing in the future? With your form of edit – I could have also put my "spokespersons" column suggestion or 12 points amounts for prose which actually nobody disagreed with; I simply suggested at first to show all countries 12s at prose but after I explained I dropped that to only write who received 12s and how many sets, only you replied thinking I still wanted to point all 37 countries and when I explained I don't, you didn't reply further. So I could have consider this also as making an edit-implement of 12s prose to aid the discussion. But you know that if I would have done this (as what you did) you would have felt stressed, revert me and you would have told me how collaboration and working together is important, basically the stuff I'm telling you now...

Especially – I note here again that I said from the beginning I understand your desire in general as I proposed similar stuff albeit without duplication when you saw that discussion back few years ago. I also don't understand why you didn't participate in that discussion back then. You were active and you removed English translations based on that discussion, while my ideas got "stuck" as I didn't get input and I didn't force my ideas on the articles. Otherwise back in 2016 the articles would have further-details table as I wrote to "Oris Odi" now that I agree with amalgamation of other such columns for "selections" and "broadcasters". And I put time and energy to contribute suggestions again now to also help you and others find more ways and agreements, and I even pinged another user who I knew will probably agree with your specific table despite that I disagree with it. Naturally, I want the same care for me and others. And even there is bit more support for your table now - it's small, vague with some saying they overall like the layouts, and still debating which columns and order.

Also in general there were past cases where I felt lack of consideration and even trampling by you, and I want to share them, especially in a case that I want to keep edit and I don't because you suddenly reverted me also a while ago and you also didn't reply to me a year ago when I asked you about it on the Eurovision project page. Why I was further hesitant to come here and understand how much it's difficult for me to write to you here now. If you're not up to talk here, I will try to seek help from someone to follow and help in discussions and their decisions progress, so that I can feel motivation to keep discuss and contribute or otherwise stop discussing and working on stuff related to huge changes on Eurovision articles. If you can talk and listen, thanks. אומנות (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@אומנות: Thank you for reaching out to me here. I am very sorry if my words or actions caused any pain to you or others, it was definitely not my intent and I feel really bad that this is the outcome. Honestly my comments about not understanding what you were trying to convey were genuine, and I was just trying to get a better understanding of what exactly you meant.
The sentence I highlighted in particular regarding what I didn't understand from your reply (revert this table please back to the stable tables with points and scores and by running order with split to semis and final), I still have a hard time comprehending as these tables still exist within the "Contest overview" segment. The "minimal changes" you refer to is in fact "minimal changes to the results tables", which is true because the only change here was removing the language column and non-Latin scripts since these are included in the new participants table and we could save on width and size in those tables; of course obviously there have been a lot of substantial changes to this article since the RfC was started, and this was never an effort to try and "gaslight" you or anyone about what has been happening on the article. My request as well for additional voices was not me trying to steer the conversation in one way in particular to "get my way"; if there had been additional comments opposed to the changes that outweighed those in favour, I would of course have relented or tried to find a compromise.
On some of the other points you raised, sometimes I guess I will read some comments that other editors have left and I guess I don't feel it needs a response necessarily; in the case of the 12 points in prose, it seemed to me like your response was more of a statement rather than a question that required an additional response. I can't say I know for sure what went through my mind when I read it the first time, but I guess it seemed to me at that time that it didn't need a further comment; reading it back I can understand better what you were trying to convey, and it's not a bad idea. Possibly because of how you write, the words you use and the way you construct sentences, I can struggle sometimes to understand you fully and it can take me a couple of reads of your replies to fully understand what you are trying to convey. I understand that English isn't your first language, and I know myself as someone who is a lover of languages and wants to learn a lot more that conversing in a language that is not your own is a lot more difficult, so please don't take this as a criticism.
As for the reversions you refer to, I can't speak to that specifically because I don't know exactly which edits you're talking about; if you want to provide a link to the edit history please do, and I can then potentially talk through my thinking. There are many times I will revert, and I always try to explain my reversions in the edit comments, particularly when it comes to edits that break Wikipedia policy. Reverting the collapsible tables on the 2023, as you mention on that talk page, was an WP:ACCESS issue; tables should not by default be hidden because this can cause access issues to users that don't have the functionality to expand tables.
The point of the RfC is, in my mind, to talk through things, explore new ideas, come to a compromise that satisfies most editors and contributors. I don't always get my way, and nor does anyone else on this site, and nor would I want to anyway cause compromise is a much better solution for everyone. My attempts to engage in this RfC, and in other discussions, always comes from a place of trying to improve our articles, and never from a place of trying to be cruel or undermine anyone. I feel that my thoughts and reasonings behind my replies is always evidence-based; of course personal preference will have a part to play, but it is also I believe not my main driver. Taking the "national selections" columns as an example, I provided what I believe to be good reasons for not including this column going forward, given national selections are not actually an integral part of the actual contest, and given the linkage already to the specific "country by year" articles in that table.
I appreciate change can be a scary thing for a lot of people, and it can take some time to adjust to new formats etc. I know myself the brunt of what you can get when trying to make changes, you feel you have wider agreement, and then editors come out of nowhere to disagree. I know how demoralising that can be, but I've tried my best to push on ahead and continue to contribute and improve things where I can. I do really appreciate you bringing this to my attention, I will try in the future to modulate my tone better and be more considerate of everyone's suggestions. I hope that we can engage further within this RfC and in other discussions in the future from a place of good faith and that we can both contribute to the WikiProject well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I feel much better and my anxiety almost ceased once I read your apologetic and reaching-out replies last week and further explaining your conduct, thank you. This is why I then wanted to get out a lot for a break and to think for a few days how to further explain, as it took me very long time to write my previous replies which you still didn't get what I meant in regards to the RfC principles and base of what bothers me. I also went out for pride events on the weekend, I hung a lot in the sun and got minor heat stroke so I was further exhausted and took few more days to work on my reply to you.
I even barely worked in real life as a result of my feelings in general within Wikipedia which start sliding to depression and on the other hand the hang outs and sun heat outside. And awaiting your reaction (or anybody's in such situation) which causes some suspense, tension, all together was too much for me to handle. So now I please need to think how to explain and a few more cases I wanted to discuss which I pilled inside of me over the last 2 years in our interactions.
On the other hand, when reading your reply above, I see your good faith attempts better now. I saw them already before in most cases, so could feel relief with this situation. Unfortunately, now I see comments from others at the Eurovision project which are blunt disrespect which adds to this emotional burden. It makes it harder to feel motivated to keep discuss and try to collaborate. This is why I often disappear for many months when I feel I can't blend in or that my contributions will be deleted (for wrong reasons) or feeling ignored in general, or if I try to talk to someone and I feel they don't care that others think differently.
So… I just wanted to write this in the meantime, that you know I read and appreciate your replies, but that I also need maybe-2 days maybe few more to explain some things and think how to say them more directly and clearly without sounding harsh yet being clear to you of what I mean. And the other past stuff I want to explain that I got confused and antagonized so I can try to keep contribute and work with you on Eurovision discussions as you also wish we can keep doing together. So I'll take few more days to think and feel calm and in the meantime thank you for your reply. אומנות (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@אומנות: I can certainly understand how frustrating it can be at times to engage with individuals and not receive the response that you might have expected. And I'm sorry to hear that it has had an effect on your personal life. It's important to understand that for most of what we do on this site and anytime we might get shot down, very little of this is coming from a personal place. We're all on here to help out where we can, and yes there may be times where we might butt heads or disagree, but it's important that we engage with civility and assume good faith when there are disagreements. We might all forget this at times, I know I do as well, and it can take a while for it to become second nature I suppose.
Regarding what you are referring to on the talk pages, if there's any specific examples where you believe this doesn't convene with Wikipedia policy then you should escalate it. I can't say I've seen anything myself that would warrant escalation, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Disagreements and disputes are a normal part of engaging with other users on Wikipedia, but again it's generally never personal to you. If there are any examples you can share where your contributions were reverted without cause, then please let do me know, because I would like to help if possible. At the same time however, it's important to note that consensus is the primary means of decision making on Wikipedia, and not always will everyone be happy with a particular decision. As a WikiProject we will all have ideas about how best the articles should be presented and what should be included, and we will rarely get 100% of what we want out of a discussion. Additionally, as Wikipedia is built upon community contributions, no one owns any particular piece of work that they may contribute; anything can be modified or changed by anyone else, build upon or modified, and in some cases deleted if additions are found to contravene Wikipedia policies.
I'm not trying to quote you the rule book or anything with this. It's more me coming from a perspective of, I guess, trying to explain some of the interactions you might have experienced within the WikiProject. I am more than happy to continue to discuss any specific issues you have with our interactions, and hopefully we can both come to a better understanding of each other through this process. It's not always easy to air your frustrations in this way, so I do truly commend you for this as well. Take all the time you need to get yourself into a better headspace, and we can pick up this topic then. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

ESC order of authors

Hi, I noticed that all my edits implemented in the various ESC pages have been cancelled. My changes were to arrange the names of the authors in alphabetical order, as was implemented for all editions of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, which I personally worked on to speed up the use of the new table.

Personally, I think that an order of the name of the various authors in alphabetical order (preferable for the first name since, in recent editions, many sign with their pseudonyms) would allow, in addition to a very usable reading, also a stylistic consistency that can be implemented in all pages of the contest.

I await your reply as to whether I can re-arrange the pages by alphabetical order. :) -- Dominikcapuan (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dominikcapuan: Thank you for reaching out. The order which the songwriters were originally listed is based on what is included in List of Eurovision Song Contest entries, which is in turn based on what is shown on the official website primarily, although not exclusively. Although it is not specified explicitally, the idea has been to have songwriters which contributed to the music first, followed by lyricists. I had not noticed that the order you were trying to implement was alphabetical, which would make logical sense, however I noticed that not all of the changes you made were to alphabetise these, and it seemed more random to me. However this is potentially due to you alphabetising by first name, rather than last name, which is the preferred method for alphabetising individuals. Some examples include your edits to the 1958, 1959 and 1960 where "Meyer" was placed before "Brandin", "Verde" before "Modugno", and "Verde" before "Rascel" respectively, hence my confusion. I think alphabetising these by surname would make sense however, so I'm happy for you to proceed on that basis. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I totally understand what you mean, as I told you earlier I was trying to follow the order by name since many people use pseudonyms. But it's also fine with me to follow by Last name, I will try to fix the JESC pages using this system, and the more modern ESC pages I have already edited :) -- Dominikcapuan (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

2012

Doesn't the source claiming that "all countries used 50/50 voting" cover them all, and then adding exemptions on top of it for jury only? ImStevan (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@ImStevan: The only reference to the 50/50 jury and televoting system within the article is actually unreferenced (the reference for the paragraph in question only mentions bringing back the televoting window, not the method of voting). Even though it is clearly the case for most of the countries that 50/50 voting was used, without any reference to back this up it's unverifiable. Additionally, even rectifying that issue by adding a source to outline the method used, using one reference to state that 50/50 voting was used in 2012, another reference to state that there are exceptions, and then other references which outline specific exceptions to the 50/50 rule (e.g. with Albania in semi-final 1), is actually a WP:SYNTH issue. We can't say for certain that there weren't other countries that didn't use just jury or televote to determine their points, and potentially (although highly unlikely as it may be) there could have been other exceptions which were required and which weren't announced at the time, so using multiple references to piece a narrative that isn't in the original sources would be original research. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1996

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1996 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Onegreatjoke -- Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of “National selection events” fields

Hi, what was the reason for the removal of this field? I think it was very handy in order to know the process a broadcaster used for selecting an entry at a specific year. Thank you. 5.224.11.38 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You can find the reasoning and discussion which lead to this field's removal here. This information is too complex to be condensed for inclusion in an infobox, and having the information presented in the infobox without suitable context is a WP:NOTSTATS issue. Additionally the majority of this information across the articles was completely unsourced and unverified, and therefore is subject to removal. Any relevant information should be sourced and included within the prose of the article going forward; see good examples of this at Andorra, Romania and San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Sims2aholic8!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1995

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1995 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Aintabli -- Aintabli (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1995

The article Eurovision Song Contest 1995 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1995 and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1995/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Aintabli -- Aintabli (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kvalifikacija za Millstreet

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kvalifikacija za Millstreet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kvalifikacija za Millstreet

The article Kvalifikacija za Millstreet you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kvalifikacija za Millstreet and Talk:Kvalifikacija za Millstreet/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

1964 French radio commentator

Hi ! Thanks for being such an active contributor to all ESC articles. You deleted the name Robert Beauvais as the French radio commentator in the Eurovision Song Contest 1964 article. Actually, this is supported by my source but maybe there is a misunderstanding about what exactly is the source. The source is not the catalog record by INA but the radio broadcast itself (which I listened to, I was at the INA in June and had the opportunity to consult it at their centre in Paris. At the beginning of the broadcast, a speaker announces the transmission which is about to start, and that it would be commented by Beauvais). Would it be possible to revert back to my version or how could we solve this problem?

Greetings from Munich. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@EurovisionLibrarian: Thanks for clarifying! In that case we may need to add an additional citation to make it clear that it is the radio broadcast itself that is the source. Is there a link that can be added here for the radio broadcast itself (even if it's one that is only accessible at the INA facilities)? The confusion will continue I believe if we don't add something extra to back up the claim, which could be with or without a link. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thank you ! I'll make a new citation then. And yes, there seems to be a link for remote access (subscription content, only available to media professionals) via INA's platform inamediapro.com, so I'll add that as link.
I'll also transform the citation for the catalog record so that it's clear that that one is for the catalog record and not for the radio broadcast. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kvalifikacija za Millstreet

The article Kvalifikacija za Millstreet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kvalifikacija za Millstreet for comments about the article, and Talk:Kvalifikacija za Millstreet/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Kvalifikacija za Millstreet

Hello. It's not any sentence fragment. It's a standard sentence, and it requires a dot at the end. Even references has dots and the end, even if they are not sentence at all. Eurohunter (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Hi there. "Delayed broadcast on 8 May 1993" is indeed a sentence fragment, because it is missing a key part of what makes a sentence, in this case a subject (i.e. DR in this case; see here for examples of other sentence fragments). Going by what I can see online, I was incorrect in thinking that sentence fragments shouldn't contain full stops, however there is still no need for a full stop here because it is a stand-alone phrase and there is no follow-on sentence that would require a full stop to indicate the separation of two different sentences. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
What about to change it to "Broadcast was delayed on 8 May 1993."? Eurohunter (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: As I said, my "sentence fragment" point was partially incorrect, and in normal prose a full stop would be used. However, as I pointed out, this is a footnote and there is only one phrase, so a full-stop is redundant here as it's stand-alone. In the same way that sentence fragments in lists wouldn't require a full stop (see MOS:LISTCASE), the same is valid here, and as a footnote would become part of a larger list in the notes section of the article, the Manual of Style for lists is relevant here as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

1964 French TV broadcast

Hi again! You reverted my edit of "Première chaîne" back to "RTF". As far as I can see, in principle, you're right. What complicates the matter is that my source (Le Figaro 21-03-1961), in its TV program for the evening gives a separate program for "Première chaîne" and "Deuxième chaîne" (I can send you a scan of the page). This seems to be because Deuxième chaîne began broadcasting in the Paris region in 1963 already, see the French Wikipedia on Deuxième chaîne. So for viewers in the region of Paris, it must have been "Première chaîne", for the rest of the country it was just "RTF". I think I'll put an explanatory note in the article. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@EurovisionLibrarian: Thanks for clarifying this. I hadn't realised that the second channel had begun test transmissions within Paris already by 1963. Is a footnote really relevant here though? I think there's maybe a bit of WP:UNDUE weight given to what is more a technicality in the name of the channel. I just don't believe it's particularly relevant to this article on Eurovision 1964 that the channel the contest was broadcast on in France was potentially known by a slightly different name in some media publications that served the Paris region. Please do let me know your thoughts on this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Since the source Le Figaro is a national newspaper (didn't only serve Paris) and France is a very centralised country (Paris often sets the standards for the rest of the country), I deemed it good to include that name for it seemed more than just an alternative name. However, following your remarks, I have checked the naming in another big national newspaper, Le Monde, for the same date, and to my surprise, they simply write "Television" instead of "Première chaîne". In conclusion, I can live without the footnote if you think it is not necessary nor helpful.
Talking of notes, I recently came across the 1957 article with the footnote explaining what the abreviation ARD stands for. I think that footnote is also not necessary and could be deleted as well. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I suppose television in the sixties was still quite a fluctuating media, and there probably wasn't the same level of consistency or branding as there is now. The 1957 footnote is a different matter in my opinion; the current format for the infoboxes and within the article body is for the first mention of the host broadcaster to be expanded and named in full before then abbreviated elsewhere. However because Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland is quite long in comparison with most EBU broadcasters, and especially in the infobox would become quite crowded, it made better sense to include this as a footnote. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1995

The article Eurovision Song Contest 1995 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1995 for comments about the article, and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1995/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Aintabli -- Aintabli (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Eurovision News Update

WikiProject Eurovision
Shortcut

Dear Eurovision Wikipedian,

Our project pages have undergone a full color change and now resemble the Swedish flag . Content and design updates are taking place daily.

The new Archive tab will make it easier to find and view just about all of our archived pages. It is a work in progress.

Issue 49 of the newsletter is currently pending delivery. While we await that, you can now receive daily and/or weekly Eurovision news updates. Sign up below have a wonderful week.

To receive a daily or weekly Eurovision news update please click on the appropriate button.


Cordially,

News Desk Editor-in-Chief Ktkvtsh (talk)

Eurovision Daily News Update
16 August 2023






Born Efrén Eugene Benita in 1951 on the Caribbean island of Aruba, he was fluent in English, Dutch, Spanish and Papiamento, the creole language of the island. As a drummer and a backing vocalist, he worked with The Drifters, Tom Jones, Billy Ocean, José Feliciano and The Platters.
Benton's daughter Sissi participated in Eesti Laul in 2021 with the song "Time", attempting to follow in her father's footsteps and represent Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021. She qualified to the superfinal, where she placed second.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter Issue 49

→ Issue 49 ←
Headlines
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Unassessed articles Good articles A-class articles Featured articles Number of members
7263 1091 0 0 171 117 0 0 4 1 105 4

• HOME • TALK • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES •
• Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1999

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Golden -- Golden (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1996

The article Eurovision Song Contest 1996 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1996 and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1996/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Onegreatjoke -- Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Sims2aholic8, just wanted to remind you that it's been four days since I reviewed your nomination and I haven't heard back from you. If I don't get a response in the next three days, I'll have to fail the nomination. — Golden talk 07:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Golden Thanks for reaching out. I have just returned from a holiday, hence the lateness of getting back to you. I will aim to review your comments and apply any required changes today. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
That's great. I look forward to your changes. — Golden talk 09:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1999

The article Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999 and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Golden -- Golden (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1996

The article Eurovision Song Contest 1996 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1996 for comments about the article, and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1996/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Onegreatjoke -- Onegreatjoke (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1999

The article Eurovision Song Contest 1999 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999 for comments about the article, and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Golden -- Golden (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding archive links

Regarding the addition of archive links to Eurovision 2024 page. What does it hurt to have the sources archived links be included? It was more of a proactive decision in my head. Do we wait until a link is dead to add an archived link? Just feels counterproductive to revert this. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ktkvtsh: Hi there! Yes of course it makes a lot of sense to add dead links where appropriate. I always try to add archived links when I am improving articles as well. However in the case of Eurovision Song Contest 2024, because the topic is still very much current and is continuing to develop, the links included are not likely to become dead anytime soon. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be archiving them of course for future posterity, however keeping the dead links for ~100 live webpages on this article I don't believe is helpful at this time. It doesn't add any real value at this stage and instead just bloats the page size by about 20kB, and therefore it can severely impact load time for poor internet connections. It's not a completely worthless effort, since all those articles are now saved within the Wayback Machine for future use if and when there is a case of link rot. I hope this makes sense, happy to continue to discuss if you'd like. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely understand. Thank you for explaining. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hey Sims2aholic8 I wanted to express my sincere appreciation for your tireless contributions and dedication to elevating Eurovision-related articles to a good standard. You truly deserve this barnstar, Keep up the great work. :D Iaof2017 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter Issue 50

→ Issue 50 ←
Headlines
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Unassessed articles Good articles A-class articles Featured articles Number of members
7263 1091 0 0 178 7117 0 0 4 0 108 109

• HOME • TALK • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES •
• Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I had some troubles and still do with health issues and hospitals arrangements the past months, and under the war, though at the first weeks after I reached to you, I kept heavily working on my computer to prepare explanations on several things while taking breaks; as I said before I still felt miss-understandings so worked harder afterwards to try and phrase (on "Word") in addition to 1-2 other stuff I wanted to add. I edit little for war-stuff urgent for me and otherwise keep taking breaks as I sometimes have pains-issues and exhaustion. There's also a current situation on Eurovision subject which is urgent for me, to try and reach another user, that I hope for understanding, before a surgery I need. So just to let you know in the meantime that I still want to talk, with extending your understanding it take some more time, and that regardless I'm sorry I write after few months; I will try to write to you before a surgery or in January if I'll be fine afterwards and by than. אומנות (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edits on ESC 1990

Hi! I appreciate your edits and rewriting of the ESC 1990 article. Great work! I have one point of debate, however: you deleted one of my contributions:

This was my contribution (August 2023):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_1990&diff=prev&oldid=1171881720

This was your edit deleting it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_1990&diff=prev&oldid=1187987554

In your summary, you gave as a reason “removing unnecessary and non-notable information”.

It is difficult for me to know whether you deemed my contribution either unnecessary or non-notable, or both.

My motivation behind adding it in the first place was that the academic paper by Mari Pajala (which I quote) sees the ESC 1990 as a milestone in the development of ESC television production history. The non-static use of cameras is seen by the author as an element which is an innovative novelty in the ESC as a television production. Maybe my contribution wasn’t clear enough in that respect. I don’t think my contribution was non-notable or unnecessary. I hope we can reach a consensus on this matter. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@EurovisionLibrarian: Thanks for reaching out on this, I really appreciate you coming to me about this as I definitely didn't mean for it be to discouraging. That was more directed at some of the information which was more "commentary-like", which was predominantly unsourced and I felt wasn't particularly encyclopaedic in nature. As for your addition around camera angles, potentially this could be readded if it's framed in the right way and there's a cohesion with the rest of the article. I guess the way I was reading it it didn't seem like a major milestone for the contest, maybe I was misremembering some past contests where there were a lot of other sweeping shots, e.g. 1989 with the big sweeping shots from the back of the auditorium, but I understand a bit better now the point you were trying to raise around it essentially being the first use of steadicams in the contest, although I guess this isn't specified exactly in the source. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I’ve checked the videos of 1989 and 1990. Well, yes, there are camera movements from the perspective of the back of the auditorium but the angle or perspective shown still is the one that a spectator from the back of the auditorium would have. In contrast, the 1990 edition brings camera movements onto the stage, movements turning around the artists so to show them also from behind and from the side etc. I guess the most striking example is the beginning of the Spanish entry (this must have been done with a hand-held camera / steadicam), but similar movements are also present in the UK’s entry and Yugoslavia. I could also see movements from above (camera on a crane?) but this feature is also present in earlier contests.
Here’s what Pajala writes:
"[page 192]:
[...] the production has been continuously adapted to the changing media environment. This shows, for instance, in the contest’s approach to television aesthetics. [... about the early years:] The programme was basically a concert filmed by a few cameras and transmitted by television [...]
[then continuing on page 193, on the 1980s:]
Music Television and the rise of the music video changed the audiovisual aesthetics of popular music. The ESC needed to adapt in this new environment. The 1990 ESC in Zagreb exemplifies these developments. Although the contest was filmed in a concert hall, the televised performances were not as tied to the realist space of the concert hall as before. The stage was low, allowing cameras to move to and from the stage and circle among the performers. Numerous camera angles and moving cameras allowed television viewers to see the performers from angles that were not available for the audience on site. Two large video walls provided a second, simultaneous view of the performers. [...] In these ways the contest departed from the “realist” space of the contest hall [“concert hall” is probably intended] to produce audiovisual performances that fit contemporary understandings of televisuality, making use of the possibilities of up-to date technology."
I don't know how you think about it. Certainly, Pajala doesn't write explicitly words like "milestone" or "innovation", her term "exemplifies" even weakens the contrast between 1990 and previous editions. At the same time, the features she writes about are new featues that are not present to this degree in previous editions.
If we add it again, I would like to see it included in the “Production” section, I think it fits best there. It is essentially about television production. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@EurovisionLibrarian: I definitely get your point around 1990 being a watershed moment in terms of production aesthetics, and that move away from it being a kinda static production to one that was a lot more dynamic. And I agree, it would warrant inclusion within the "Production" section. It's a tricky one though because I suppose there had also been a lot of tiny changes over the course of the late 80s and early 90s so it's difficult to pinpoint one exact moment where it all changed from a production POV. Like there are certainly a lot of modern innovations that also took place in 1987 and 1988, but yeah comparing those contests certainly 1990 seems to be the first occasion where that kinda dynamism was introduced to the contest. I'm happy enough if you want to readd the paragraph, or a reworking of it to maybe flesh it out some more; maybe there are some additional refs you can find that can add some more context? I may tweak it slightly just FYI, since I want to make sure the entire section flows and has a cohesion to it as I push to get this to GA status. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I've tried to reformulate a little bit and added it alongside more context and a second ref, which aims to make understand the significance for the transition into the "modern era" which features more "live music video"-like performances and subsequently more dynamic camera movements. I've put it at the end of the Production section for the moment, feel free to rewrite and move it around. Since you have done many edits on the article, you have a better overview of cohesion and structure. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Sims2aholic8. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
  • Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
  • Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. – Joe (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrej Babić for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrej Babić is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrej Babić until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Stylistic capitalisations

Just to let you know there's some stylistic capitalisation on the Eurovision Song Contest 1974 article. Some obscure Swedish band called ABBA. You might want to revert that right too. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Psycho-Krillin: Well given that ABBA stands for Agnetha, Björn, Benny and Anni-Frid, it is not a stylisation but an acronym. Maybe next time you might actually want to read the Manual of Style links being referred to, which explicitly state that acronyms are a different situation, before you come and be snarky on someone's talk page just because they're trying to be helpful and point out the consistent MoS methods which are or should be applied across all Wikipedia articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Irish Spokesperson 1988

Hello, I was wondering what the best way to reference the spokesperson for the Irish jury in 1988 would be? Since one of the host's Pat Kenny makes reference that the voice was that of John Skehan during the coverage. However I understand YouTube is not considered a valid source, how would one maybe expand on this? For information - Kenny makes the reference around 3 minutes into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR4d3NkVFKM&t=136s.

Thanks very much Mrluke485 (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out! I've re-added this information based on what you have presented and used a footnote to explain that Kenny confirmed this during the broadcast, with a reference to the broadcast itself without linking to a YouTube clip or other copyright-breaking source. Sims2aholic8 (talk) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Sims2aholic8 for collecting at least 25 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sims2aholic8/Archive_6&oldid=1223064645"